Yeah, the only positive use for the consumer regarding NFTs is literally the one thing a company would never want to do.

Yeah that was never more than a lie to make people think it was a good idea. They never would have done it. 

Did you just write an article about a new trailer without linking or embedding the new trailer at all while still talking about what was in it and at the same time linking the 4-month old introduction video instead? Here, I’ll do the work for you:

Elon Musk is a dumb bitch with a breeding kink so of course he thinks this.

I hate that interchange, tons of tourists and a diverging diamond interchange that is likely the only one they’ve ever seen, there were no benefits to it over a conventional as any efficiency gains are negated by 90% of drivers going da fuq (that was my reaction to my first diverging diamond experience).

The irony is that a buc-ees makes an even better argument as an EV charging station

Somebody should make a show about two rival intimacy coordinators falling in love while making a steamy Disney+ series 

This article has an amazing typo that I am going to start using as an insult. “discocunt”

A current “buy one, get two free” deal on used games

I would rather stop viewing YouTube entirely than allow ads. Advertising, in every form, is intrusive and unwanted.

Between this and his outburst with Vice Admiral Pasalk last week, Spock’s suddenly a loose cannon!

Much like Judgement Day, the rise of Khan is inevitable, but subject to scheduling issues.

The Romulan agent lampshading this was pretty hilarious. “Goddammit, I thought I took care of this 30 fucking years ago but nooooo, the timeline just keeps kicking the can down the road!”

The Romulan chick said something to the effect of “All this Kahn stuff was supposed to start in 1992, but factions in the temporal wars had changed stuff.”

So it’s not a retconn in as much as it is a clue that there are outside forces mucking with the timelines.  

You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about. All the things you listed aren’t problems, they’re red flags. Grooming isn’t the problem, the problem is what it leads to. So if there’s more (and it seems like there is), then that’s understandable. What’s in this article isn’t damaging, it’s inappropriate.

Whaaaaa... a white Christian perpetual victim is making a completely made up bad faith argument?!?  I just don’t believe it...

For those of us who take child abuse seriously rather than as a sensational news item, “grooming” is a means to an end. What’s being reported here is admittedly cringey behavior that did not, reportedly, lead to the actualized or attempted sexual abuse or predation of a minor.

I’m feeling the same way. Yes, the oversharing, and reaching out to young fans is inappropriate, and kind of gross. But is it grooming if there isn’t an intent of action?

Not being able to tell the difference between a news source and a news aggregator is something I wouldn’t publish.

I am an old, so I am not familiar with her work, or this controversy.